nancyp at yorku.ca
nancyp at yorku.ca
Thu Jun 25 12:32:15 CDT 2009
Sorry for the mislead on this. I agree with you.
There are a lot of layer 9 reasons why this is the case.
Quoting rodbeck1 at gmail.com:
> You're missing the point and you're quoting out of context.
> The point is that common carrier protections should apply to ISPs since they
> are essentially doing the same thing as carriers - they are shipping bits.
> The whole enhanced service distinction is flimsy. There is nothing about IP
> that makes an enhanced service in any meaninful sense different It is just a
> transport protocol.
> So don't confuse 'is' and 'ought'.
> I am advocating that common carrier protections should be extended to ISPs.
> ---- Envoyé avec BlackBerry® d'Orange ----
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <nancyp at yorku.ca>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:22:08
> To: Richard A Steenbergen<ras at e-gerbil.net>
> Cc: NANOG list<nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: tor - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO:
> fields in the email addresses
> As I understand & pls correct if I am wrong:
> > There is a long established legal tradition that telecommunication
> > transport is not liable for the content it transmits. It's called
> > common carrier.
> Telephony = common carrier yes- considered 'basic service'under Telecom Act
> but data is considered 'enhanced services' different section of the Act. Thus
> common carrier does not apply.
> The dualism/argument began in the 2nd computer inquiry and scales right up to
> [US dominated] Intl telephony settlements- ICAIS where VoIP is not settled
> same way [$] but governed by peering/transit arrangements
> Nancy Paterson
> (Reachability as a Net Neutrality Issue)
> PhD student, YorkU, Toronto
> Quoting Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:57:27PM +0100, Rod Beck wrote:
> > > Hi Richard,
> > >
> > > It is a more complicated issue than that.
> > >
> > > There is a long established legal tradition that telecommunication
> > > transport is not liable for the content it transmits. It's called
> > > common carrier. If someone makes an obscene phone call, the phone
> > > company cannot be held liable. Yes, if the client subsequently
> > > complains and asks for that number to be blocked and the phone company
> > > does nothing, that's different.
> > >
> > > But the general principle is that anyone who transmits bits is not
> > > liable for content.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately in my personal view that principle never got established
> > > in the Layer 3 world.
> > This has nothing to do with telecommunications or any kind of carrier or
> > business relationship. This is intentionally leaving your computer open
> > so that anyone on the Internet can come along and appear to be coming
> > from your IP, where they will promptly set off doing bad stuff that will
> > get traced back to you rather than them. Think of it like intentionally
> > leaving your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition and a note
> > authorizing people to borrow it and take it for a spin, and then
> > expecting not to get into any kind of trouble when they rack up speeding
> > tickets and/or use it to run someone over.
> > Besides, the kind of consequencies I'm talking about are "having your
> > internet account shut off for abuse"... But if you do happen to be one
> > of those unlucky people who gets sued for downloading illegal content I
> > don't think "but your honor I was running tor" is the defense you're
> > looking for. :)
> > --
> > Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
> > GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
More information about the NANOG